There seems to be an interest in exploring the substance, value, purpose, and format of AMV criticism, so I hope this thread will provide that forum. Subjects to be considered:

Group reviewsReview topicsOpinionsStarsQuick Comments

A limited and non exhaustive list of possible questions to be asked:

Is there value in reviewing or analysing AMVs?What is the definition of AMV critical theory?Where does criticism of the work stop and criticism of what creator start?Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?What is the best format for critical theory?Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?Should criticism be anonymous?In what format should group criticism occur?

This is an academic discourse, and therefore academic standards of behavior should apply. We all have very strong opinons about criticism, but we should try to retain the civilised format one would find in an academic seminar. I'll offer my own thoughts as they occur to me based on how the conversation develops.

I consider star rating systems as fundamentally flawed. While an 5.0 average by 2 ratings is generally taken as unreliable, I disagree with the idea that enough # of ratings mean the average is reliable. All it implies is the current consensus of general audience.

(please note that the words I use are without any implication of offending others, they are used for explanation purposes)Furthermore after somewhat 1000s of ratings is accumulated, the rating process reverses itself and starts to affect others who doesn't know of the video yet. Of course those who have had enough 'ok, but not that much' experience with having some expectations prior to actually watching an AMV, are likely to be less affected by this, but these people are of a smaller portion.

I suppose one major factor there is the extent to which people think AMVs and their authors can exhibit artistic development; there is no point in criticizing or reviewing a form that is static. I'd like to add that onto the list of questions.

I certainly believe that artistic development is something AMV editors are capable of displaying. I certainly feel I've developed both technically and artistically over the years. I tend to think some of the hobby's critics see AMVs as static or plateaued, and while I think that may be true for certain individuals or certain segments of the community, I do not believe it to be universally true, or even mostly true.

so that's either .117 stars per hit, or 316 stars total, or 68 people who didn't leave stars?

Hits doesn't mean download of the actual video, it means page views for your video information page. So you get a hit if they even just load up the page. You can, however, see actual download/previews by selecting the "Edit Video Info" link on the sidebar, if you want to see how many have watched the video but just haven't left stars yet.

Absolutely. From both ends of the table. First off, as a person/editor on the recieving end, I look at it as a way to gauge my ideas and where I might need to improve. After 12+ years, while I feel like I can improve on a lot of things still, I very rarely take any comments that reflect that. Mostly because I already know what I need to improve on. That said, I mostly want to know what people think, good and bad. You'll notice that I ask people to elaborate on their comments if I don't understand their point of view. Ultimately, the process is a way for me to understand how other people think. It may or may not influence what I make in the future though.

Secondly, as a person reviewing another video, I want other people to improve on themselves. Especially newer editors who may not have the basics down or are lacking skills that would make their work much better. I also see it as a way to see what other people are doing and how they justify their work. Just like myself, when I make a video, it's how I want it to be. If there's a flaw, it's there on purpose or I admit my laziness. Either way, I already know about it and it's in the final video for a reason. There are other seasoned editors that feel the same way. The process of review allows me to understand their views on their video better.

What is the definition of AMV critical theory?

The study of reviewing and critiquing amvs.

Where does criticism of the work stop and criticism of what creator start?

To me, it's always the work unless you are looking at the creator as a whole. When I review a video (or judge one for that matter) I look at the video I am currently watching. I do not compare it to another video. I do not let what I think of the editor influence what I think of the video.

Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?

I don't think so, as long as it's within context of the video you are reviewing. There's actually a good documentary (I believe it's called Critic) about this very thing where film critics are down right ripping into actors while reviewing a bad film. I think this is wrong. There's no reason to rip into an editor if they made a bad video (aka a video you didn't like). If they make a series of bad videos then I think it would be appropriate to perhaps critique their editing as a whole but never just outright rip into them and flame for just the one video.

What is the best format for critical theory?

I don't think there's a best format. I think comments systems, forums, group chats all have different focus and methods that provide different results. It really depends on the type of critique you want.

Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?

No. By posting it in public you are subject to any criticism that might come your way. If you don't want criticism, don't post it publicly. That said, I believe if someone were to show you a video, that they have not yet posted publicly, then you shouldn't post it for them, nor share it without their consent. This happened to me personally a few years back with a beta I sent to a small handful of people. Some how it made its way around to a fair number of people, whom then started messaging me to finish it. These were people I didn't know at the time and didn't explicitly want their opinions on a work in progress.

Should criticism be anonymous?

Yes and no. I think people are much more open about what they believe when they know their comments will be anonymous. However, this leaves accountability on the side of the road. As a reviewer, I can rip into a video and they'll never know it was me. However, they will also never know it was me if I gave them good advice. I look at advice differently based on the person giving it. If Vlad walks up to me and says that he thinks I could really improve my videos if I did blah blah blah. I will listen to him over some new editor I've never heard of saying the same thing. That doesn't mean I wont take the advice, but Vlad's opinion, in my mind, carries much more weight then the other person. Anonymity doesn't allow for this type of thing and I believe a lot of editors generally just blow off advice from people when it's anonymous.

In what format should group criticism occur?

I like a round robin type approach. Everyone watches the video and they each comment on it. However I can see and open forum working as well where anyone can comment at any time, perhaps with a moderator in case things get out of hand.

trythil wrote:I suppose one major factor there is the extent to which people think AMVs and their authors can exhibit artistic development; there is no point in criticizing or reviewing a form that is static.

I believe AMVs as a whole can be considered a form of art, wither or not an editor believe that themselves or intends a work of theirs to be such. I believe it's all in the perspective of the viewer. A fresh piece of shit in my cat's litter box is just a piece of shit to me but to someone else it could be an amazing piece of natural art. My cat is not an artist, nor did she intend for her piece of shit to be art, yet, someone out there might think it is and therefore might find something in there to comment on. It's a loose example, I know.

Which is why I don't really believe in the idea of there being no point to criticism or review of AMVs as whole. If I personally believed that AMVs weren't art, I wouldn't critique them for that reason. Being who I am though, I wouldn't prevent other people from doing so to my own videos. If you see art in my crap, then have fun with that, I just wouldn't care. The moment I start caring about what other people think of what I made, then I've assigned some representing value of development to my work, in which case, I should mind as well think of it as art.

Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.

My view on 'Artistic creations shouldn't be criticised' is that there is no clear line to define something as artistic or non-artistic. If an offensive idea were to be depicted in two different ways: one in a proper toned movie and another in a relatively cheaper medium, does it being done properly act as a shield? while it's okay to criticise lesser depict?

butterflo wrote:My view on 'Artistic creations shouldn't be criticised' is that there is no clear line to define something as artistic or non-artistic. If an offensive idea were to be depicted in two different ways: one in a proper toned movie and another in a relatively cheaper medium, does it being done properly act as a shield? while it's okay to criticise lesser depict?

What is offensive, and when is offensiveness not a valid form of expresion? I'm not giving an answer here, I'm just asking the question.

Two artistic pieces I find personally very offensive, but still consider social commentary are the crucifix in a jar of urine and the "fast food communion wafer."

butterflo wrote:What I meant by offensive is ideas like sexism, racism and such.

I think art often explores these themes. I think there are AMVs which have explored these themes. Certainly sexism. It'd be interesting to consider what a feminist AMV critical theory would look like...

Now, if you're talking about the promotion of an -ism, well, even propaganda is considered art, even if the purpose of that art is something we strongly disagree with.

offensive ideas make valid form of expression, but being valid doesn't make it wrong to criticise the idea.. imo.I'm saying this because I've seen some movies with implied 'immature men' sexism.. and there was quite a stir in my country. Most of people here are male-dominant, btw.

Lately I've been a little bit critical towards the idea of constructive criticism because it implies that the purpose of reviews is to help the editor improve him or her self. Another nasty connotation is that the reviewer is in an objective position to tell the editor how to do this. Of course I'm not against self-improvement as such but I tend to prioritize the social function of reviews: it's about putting your work out there and others sharing thoughts about it. A review can be an end in itself, not just a tool for the editor to improve him or her self.

To be a bit speculative here, maybe when we announce a new work of ours the most elementary need is just to be recognized? It's a social thing. Getting positive, negative, constructive etc. feedback is secondary. I don't write long opinions only in order to get into detail but also because the editor most likely appreciates it that someone has spent much thought and time on his or her work. If you put 80 hours into an AMV it's only fair if somebody is willing to give you the attention. Just remember to reciprocate: it's a community afterall

Sure. Whether or not it's valuable to the reviewee, it's certainly benificial to the reviewer. Thinking critically is an important skill. Teaching others to think critically is even more important. It's an exercise in broadening the mind, and can really help you keep sharp mentally. It teaches you to not only question others, but to question your own notions of value.

Where does criticism of the work stop and criticism of what creator start?

Whenever you ascribe intent, motivation, or effort to a work you are actually talking about the creator, not their work.

Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?

Not always, but most of the time it requires knowledge outside the finished product. In a group setting, the extra knowledge someone might have isn't always presented as such. Something like knowing that scene X in the anime looked nothing like what was in the video, so the creator obviouslly had to put in a tremendous amount of work to achieve the final product is a perfectly fine statement to make.

What is the best format for critical theory? + In what format should group criticism occur?

It depends greatly on your time constraints, the number of people involved, and the number of videos involved. I prefer something in real time if you have a small number of videos - there's something about the fluidity of open discussion that broadens the discussion far better than having everyone in their own little corners. I prefer gathering my thoughts and filling up some pages with notes if there are a bunch of videos to go over, though.

Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?

I think they gave that permission implicitly by making the work public. That said, if they specifically made their intention of not being interested in it known, then it's not only a waste of time, but a dick move to bother with their stuff.

so that's either .117 stars per hit, or 316 stars total, or 68 people who didn't leave stars?

Hits doesn't mean download of the actual video, it means page views for your video information page. So you get a hit if they even just load up the page. You can, however, see actual download/previews by selecting the "Edit Video Info" link on the sidebar, if you want to see how many have watched the video but just haven't left stars yet.

To add even more to that, the counter is log-in sensitive only. Meaning, if you're logged in, you visit the comments page for a video a hundred times, you only count as one hit, but if people who are logged out (or web crawling index bots) visit the page a hundred times, they count as a hundred hits.

Of course. Normally when I'm not making an AMV, I always like to 'Study' about the hobby. While every editor has gotten his/her style, reviewing AMVs helps you to discover many other areas of the hobby. This is very important because if you don't take your time to think in a critical way, you'll be doing the same thing always and always. Besides, having a wide vision of the AMVs will help you in the moments you have to help as a judge in AMV Contests.

In the moment we stop analysing about the AMVs, in that moment the hobby doesn't make sense anymore

What is the definition of AMV critical theory?

It shows the relationship between the criticism and the analysis that involves the creators and the audience

Where does criticism of the work stop and criticism of what creator start?

In the moment the video stands alone itself as the main actor of the discussion

Is criticism of the creator always inappropriate?

I don't think so. It will be inappropriate if the creator doesn't mention any negative aspect about the video, focusing only in the awesomeness of the video, but if the creator is concient about what changes could be made, or if there were other ways to do the video, then I will not believe their thoughts will be inappropiate.

What is the best format for critical theory?

There shouldn't be a format since the criticism may develop in many different ways, putting a format reminds like a kind of 'Only under these conditions criticism can be made'

Must a creator give permission for any given and specific type of criticism to occur, especially if the work is posted publicly?

Really? If a creator wants to have control about what kind of feedback he/she may receive about the clip, then the clip will not be public first. From the moment you make a video public, you're giving authorization to any kind of criticism, no matter if it's good or bad.

Should criticism be anonymous?

Yes and no. If you're not afraid about the reactions you might receive, there's no need to be anonymous, like if someone is going to merely bash by going anonymous. But sometimes, going anonymous might be a clever move